Donald Trump

Comments

President Donald Trump thinks the United States should launch a “Space Force,” a branch of the military devoted to wars in space.

“Space is a war-fighting domain, just like the land, air and sea,” Trump said on Tuesday at the Marine Corps Air Station Miramar. “We may even have a Space Force, develop another one, Space Force. We have the Air Force, we’ll have the Space Force.”

At first, Trump said he wasn’t serious about the notion.

“Then I said, ‘What a great idea!’ Maybe we’ll have to do that,’” Trump said. “So think of that: Space Force, because we are spending a lot and we have a lot of private money coming in, tremendous.”

He also described the U.S. military as “vital to ensuring America continues to lead the way into the stars.”

Kay, honestly, ignoring the fact that he's a rambling idiot with this, I don't think this kind of (crazy) talk is bad. Yes, of course the idea of militarizing in space seems insane, but remember, this guy isn't going to be in office anywhere near long enough for that to get off the ground. Given that, the fact that he appears to be in support of space travel technology/funding is probably a good thing in the long term. The alternative, and where I often fear Republican presidents will go, is for them to slash or totally cut off funding for technology development in that area. I'm personally one who supports all work that goes towards space exploration/technology in general, not to mention asteroid intervention projects, which actually are one priority for NASA - that work has to continue in a consistent way as humankind evolves IMO .... So dropping the stupid space wars fantasy that Trump is babbling about, if he's going to help to fund NASA or even military scientific research in that area, that could be a good thing for after he's gone, at least compared to slowing or stopping that kind of advancement. And it is actually possible that he's going in the dumb "space wars" route when he talks because that is probably the only track he can take with it so his moronic base will support paying for space technology development.

it won't matter. trump is just blathering about whatever comes into his puny mind again. nothing will come of it.

People said the same thing about Reagan's Star Wars...who's laughing about that now? Space will be militarized...it is just a question of who gets there first. Most of you wouldn't last a second when one of your precious communication satellites goes down...not to mention the SiriusXM satellite. Apparently some of us fans care more about PJ Radio then others.

um, an anti-missle defense system is a TAD different than talking about a Space Force out of absolutely nowhere. it probably will happen eventualy, but it ain't gonna be spearheaded by president idiot, that I can tell you.

Team Trump Treason will have the US at war in late 2019/early 2020, to you know, increase his re-election chances.

The US is already at war and the likelihood of additional war will not increase due to US actions but due to US and allied inaction. China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, Turkey to name a few have nefarious intentions and will continue to push boundaries if they are left unopposed. The best way to slow and/or prevent this is to prepare for the worst. Nobody can run from the tide that is coming toward us.

Let me know how many Canadian troops are proffered for the coalition of the brilliant. And when they return from space. Oh, the first three countries you listed are nuclear powers, so no, and one of which is in possession of a PTape so double no. Of the other two you listed, one is a NATO ally and the other would require a massive land invasion, unless you’re advocating a nuclear strike? So, again, no. But keep beating that war drum Professor, keep beating that drum.

You need to make-up your mind as to whether Trump is a stooge of these dictators or whether he is being too tough on them. Honestly you seem to take a different tack every day. Also...the fact that you still believe there is a PTape is truly amazing.

Stormy has a tape. And pictures. Both of which will lend credence to the Steele Dossier. Hence Team Trump Treason’s fear of her. So, you’re advocating war with three nuclear powers, a NATO ally and a country that would make Iraq look like a cake walk? I guess you can when your country doesn’t have any skin in the game. And how has my position changed?

No I am not advocating war with three nuclear powers. Why is it so hard for you to understand that the best way to avoid war is to appear that you are ready for war? Also your position constantly changes on your approach to Russia. You either want a tougher line against Putin or you don't? Which is it? It appears on most days that your are advocating for war against Putin. I know your real answer though. The truth as I have stated before is that you don't really care about Russia or their actions. You care about Trump and Trump only. Russia and PTape is something you just type to use as a cudgel. You don't care about Russia at all. It is also hilarious that you think a Stormy tape lends credence to the Steele Dossier. What a moronic statement.

Care to point out which parts of the Steele Dossier have been disproved. Meanwhile, with each passing day we learn more about Team Trump Treason’s personal behavior that makes the allegations in the Steele Dossier even more believable as having happened. Also, care to explain Team Trump Treason’s absolute refusal to publically condemn Putin and Russia’s actions. Keep believing the myth Professor.

While armed conflict is your knee jerk reaction to every threat, I believe in public condemnation, expulsion of diplomats, upbraiding ambassadors, imposing sanctions passed by Congress, working with our allies to impose sanctions, particularly financial and banking sanctions, strengthening NATO, not condemning it, and building and strengthening trans-Atlantic and pacific alliances and trade agreements. Team Trump Treason hasn’t even nominated an ambassador to South Korea and has done nothing to bring other Asian countries into our sphere of influence, see Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia. In a 21st Century global economy, going it alone and putting America first is shortsighted and a strategy for a time and age that no longer exists.

The US isn’t prepared for war? What galaxy are you living in? What’s Canada’s military spend as a % of GDP and why is that?

President Donald Trump thinks the United States should launch a “Space Force,” a branch of the military devoted to wars in space.

“Space is a war-fighting domain, just like the land, air and sea,” Trump said on Tuesday at the Marine Corps Air Station Miramar. “We may even have a Space Force, develop another one, Space Force. We have the Air Force, we’ll have the Space Force.”

At first, Trump said he wasn’t serious about the notion.

“Then I said, ‘What a great idea!’ Maybe we’ll have to do that,’” Trump said. “So think of that: Space Force, because we are spending a lot and we have a lot of private money coming in, tremendous.”

He also described the U.S. military as “vital to ensuring America continues to lead the way into the stars.”

Kay, honestly, ignoring the fact that he's a rambling idiot with this, I don't think this kind of (crazy) talk is bad. Yes, of course the idea of militarizing in space seems insane, but remember, this guy isn't going to be in office anywhere near long enough for that to get off the ground. Given that, the fact that he appears to be in support of space travel technology/funding is probably a good thing in the long term. The alternative, and where I often fear Republican presidents will go, is for them to slash or totally cut off funding for technology development in that area. I'm personally one who supports all work that goes towards space exploration/technology in general, not to mention asteroid intervention projects, which actually are one priority for NASA - that work has to continue in a consistent way as humankind evolves IMO .... So dropping the stupid space wars fantasy that Trump is babbling about, if he's going to help to fund NASA or even military scientific research in that area, that could be a good thing for after he's gone, at least compared to slowing or stopping that kind of advancement. And it is actually possible that he's going in the dumb "space wars" route when he talks because that is probably the only track he can take with it so his moronic base will support paying for space technology development.

it won't matter. trump is just blathering about whatever comes into his puny mind again. nothing will come of it.

People said the same thing about Reagan's Star Wars...who's laughing about that now? Space will be militarized...it is just a question of who gets there first. Most of you wouldn't last a second when one of your precious communication satellites goes down...not to mention the SiriusXM satellite. Apparently some of us fans care more about PJ Radio then others.

War, war, war everywhere. Be afraid people. War is coming to a space near you. Did you black out your basement and hang a solar system with orbiting warring satellites because you got bored with your Middle East sand table, Professor?

The Pennsylvania race proves it: Trump is a weight around the GOP’s neck

In short, the vast majority of Republican officeholders will continue walking the tightrope. Too afraid of offending the GOP base, which is still solidly behind Trump, yet too afraid of generating a backlash among Democrats and independents, they are the proverbial deer caught in the headlights. They dare not dash to one side or another (solidly pro- or anti-Trump), but they are defenseless against the charge that they are enablers of a deeply unpopular president.

The Pennsylvania race proves conservative democrats can win. Lamb did not run against Trump. He was a great candidate who vocally rejected Pelosi and supported most if not all of the GOP's positions. There is nothing wrong with that and in fact it is smart. The other thing the race proves is that Lamb's district is not filled with a bunch of misogynist, low-information racists who voted for Trump by 20 points but then all of a sudden came to their senses. The voters of this district were offered a young dynamic candidate who spoke to them with respect and for the most part agreed with them on centre-right issues.

it doesn't matter. trump ran against him. and failed. again.

Yeah. Maybe. Other's could argue that Saccone was about to get slaughtered until Trump showed up. I'm not really sure but if you were a Republican knowing this district is about to disappear in November then why even bother showing up if it makes zero difference to the governing majority? There were so many different things at play and in the end people shouldn't take away from the fact that Lamb himself was/is an excellent candidate.

I know people use polling numbers to their advantage and decry them when they don't, but this is considered a massive upset, even if he squeaks out a win, is it not? trump won that same district by 20 points. excellent opposing candidate or not, that doesn't happen without reason.

I absolutely agree that it is a massive upset...my point is that everybody always wants it to be because of a certain thing. It is so simple to say it is because of Trump when there really are a whole host of factors. Let's flip it around for a sec... The other day there was an election in Texas which was supposed to demonstrate the coming blue wave. It turns out that there was no blue wave there at all. Cruz crushed the votes of his three opponents combined. Where was the national Trump exhaustion in Texas? The truth is that Trump plays a much smaller role in some of these local races then people want to believe. Lamb was a far better candidate then Beto. He is also more disruptive to the status quo. The candidate matters. Also the district in Pennsylvania is disappearing in November...other then narrative in what possible way did the election matter yesterday matter? In terms of passing legislation it sure as hell doesn't matter.

President Donald Trump thinks the United States should launch a “Space Force,” a branch of the military devoted to wars in space.

“Space is a war-fighting domain, just like the land, air and sea,” Trump said on Tuesday at the Marine Corps Air Station Miramar. “We may even have a Space Force, develop another one, Space Force. We have the Air Force, we’ll have the Space Force.”

At first, Trump said he wasn’t serious about the notion.

“Then I said, ‘What a great idea!’ Maybe we’ll have to do that,’” Trump said. “So think of that: Space Force, because we are spending a lot and we have a lot of private money coming in, tremendous.”

He also described the U.S. military as “vital to ensuring America continues to lead the way into the stars.”

Kay, honestly, ignoring the fact that he's a rambling idiot with this, I don't think this kind of (crazy) talk is bad. Yes, of course the idea of militarizing in space seems insane, but remember, this guy isn't going to be in office anywhere near long enough for that to get off the ground. Given that, the fact that he appears to be in support of space travel technology/funding is probably a good thing in the long term. The alternative, and where I often fear Republican presidents will go, is for them to slash or totally cut off funding for technology development in that area. I'm personally one who supports all work that goes towards space exploration/technology in general, not to mention asteroid intervention projects, which actually are one priority for NASA - that work has to continue in a consistent way as humankind evolves IMO .... So dropping the stupid space wars fantasy that Trump is babbling about, if he's going to help to fund NASA or even military scientific research in that area, that could be a good thing for after he's gone, at least compared to slowing or stopping that kind of advancement. And it is actually possible that he's going in the dumb "space wars" route when he talks because that is probably the only track he can take with it so his moronic base will support paying for space technology development.

it won't matter. trump is just blathering about whatever comes into his puny mind again. nothing will come of it.

I disagree. What will come of it is no major cuts in funding for space technology research and development. That's kind of my point. Most Republican Presidents would likely be slashing that funding. With this kind of blather, he's not nearly as likely to make such cuts. He could even end up increasing funding for NASA and military research at some point, just because of this mindless blather. That is a good thing.

Stormy Daniels’ lawsuit seeking relief from the nonexistent non-disclosure agreement is scheduled for July 12th. Hopefully, the PTape will be available in October.

Do you really think Stormy has or knows of a Ptape? She may have peed on Donny Pumpkin Head, but that's about it. Probably wants the directing credits for the upcoming adult film she is floating, "Juiced Pumpkin".

Her lawsuit specifically requests that she be allowed to speak freely of her affair with Team Trump Treason, inclusive of releasing texts, pictures and tapes that may be in her possession. So, yea.

Pompeo is a fantastic upgrade. I'm agnostic about Haspel but I'm sure the rank and file approve bigly. Lamb shows that a good candidate with a conservative-bent can win in a very Red district. Like Jones and Northam before him the dems need to recognize that this is the path to victory. If they can get their progressive wing to back off then flipping the house should be easy.

Wasn’t it about a year ago that you were claiming that the brilliancy of Team Trump Treason and his campaign and policies would result in a Team Trumpian Treasonous wave that would solidify repube holds on congress and state legislatures, resulting in Team Trump Treason’s re-election and repubes’ consolidation of power for a generation? Still believing the myth, eh Professor?

No. I never claimed that at all but I understand how your emotion prevents you from comprehending reasoned nuanced arguments which led you to think that. I said that Trump figured out how to speak to the working class voter in a way that previous Republican candidates failed. I also said that if Democrats failed to learn from this then they will have a hard time of winning in the future. Doug Jones demonstrates learning. Lamb demonstrates learning. The progressive wing boxing-in red state democrats like Tester into a corner shows a lack of learning. The odds are that the Republicans will lose the house next year regardless of Trump's performance because as I have said before it is generally cyclical...the President loses the house in his first term almost all the time and there is currently no evidence that Trump's support crosses over to GOP establishment candidates that he ran against. The senate on the other hand will likely stay red and in fact will have a larger GOP majority when all is said and done as the progressive wing is making it extremely hard for red state senators to hold their seats...the Jones election is likely an off-year anomaly where everything had to go right including a terrible opponent in order to squeak over the finish line. There is no myth of Trump other then a disruptive outsider who will govern chaotically and will be judged by results. He didn't run as a saint but as a "doer" and in the end he will take that record to the people for judgement. He will have to thread the same very thin needle to win and will have to remain an outsider to do so. Who his opponent is will matter greatly and the democrats should strongly consider candidates in the "Lamb" mold. There is a reason why Democratic operatives are on tv asking Hillary Clinton to stop talking...her AMT rhetoric is bad for the party.

Nice revisionist history. It’s what you neoCONS do best. You did claim Team Trump Treason as brilliant so at least admit that.

Hillary who?

Yes on claiming that Trump was brilliant in the campaign that he ran. It was pure brilliance as he saw what nobody else saw, ran in a way that nobody else ever ran, and won in a way that very few people have done before. Complete and utter brilliance. He continues to be brilliant in the way that he is able to on the whole advance his agenda. Like I said 100 times...the man fails forward. None of this guarantees reelection though as I have also said 100 times that he will be judged on results. I do believe though that he is doing what is necessary to repeat in 2020 even if that means GOP losses in 2018. In terms of your Neocon analysis though you are way off...the neocon establishment actually disagrees with me...they are generally NeverTrump...they thought he could not win and they still believe he is dangerous. You really need to pay attention to the different wings and who believes in what...again your understanding is all over the place.

The Pennsylvania race proves it: Trump is a weight around the GOP’s neck

In short, the vast majority of Republican officeholders will continue walking the tightrope. Too afraid of offending the GOP base, which is still solidly behind Trump, yet too afraid of generating a backlash among Democrats and independents, they are the proverbial deer caught in the headlights. They dare not dash to one side or another (solidly pro- or anti-Trump), but they are defenseless against the charge that they are enablers of a deeply unpopular president.

The Pennsylvania race proves conservative democrats can win. Lamb did not run against Trump. He was a great candidate who vocally rejected Pelosi and supported most if not all of the GOP's positions. There is nothing wrong with that and in fact it is smart. The other thing the race proves is that Lamb's district is not filled with a bunch of misogynist, low-information racists who voted for Trump by 20 points but then all of a sudden came to their senses. The voters of this district were offered a young dynamic candidate who spoke to them with respect and for the most part agreed with them on centre-right issues.

it doesn't matter. trump ran against him. and failed. again.

Yeah. Maybe. Other's could argue that Saccone was about to get slaughtered until Trump showed up. I'm not really sure but if you were a Republican knowing this district is about to disappear in November then why even bother showing up if it makes zero difference to the governing majority? There were so many different things at play and in the end people shouldn't take away from the fact that Lamb himself was/is an excellent candidate.

I know people use polling numbers to their advantage and decry them when they don't, but this is considered a massive upset, even if he squeaks out a win, is it not? trump won that same district by 20 points. excellent opposing candidate or not, that doesn't happen without reason.

I absolutely agree that it is a massive upset...my point is that everybody always wants it to be because of a certain thing. It is so simple to say it is because of Trump when there really are a whole host of factors. Let's flip it around for a sec... The other day there was an election in Texas which was supposed to demonstrate the coming blue wave. It turns out that there was no blue wave there at all. Cruz crushed the votes of his three opponents combined. Where was the national Trump exhaustion in Texas? The truth is that Trump plays a much smaller role in some of these local races then people want to believe. Lamb was a far better candidate then Beto. He is also more disruptive to the status quo. The candidate matters. Also the district in Pennsylvania is disappearing in November...other then narrative in what possible way did the election matter yesterday matter? In terms of passing legislation it sure as hell doesn't matter.

Are you comparing the results of a Republican primary with those of a general election? There was no blue wave because it was a red primary. Nice try though.

The Pennsylvania race proves it: Trump is a weight around the GOP’s neck

In short, the vast majority of Republican officeholders will continue walking the tightrope. Too afraid of offending the GOP base, which is still solidly behind Trump, yet too afraid of generating a backlash among Democrats and independents, they are the proverbial deer caught in the headlights. They dare not dash to one side or another (solidly pro- or anti-Trump), but they are defenseless against the charge that they are enablers of a deeply unpopular president.

The Pennsylvania race proves conservative democrats can win. Lamb did not run against Trump. He was a great candidate who vocally rejected Pelosi and supported most if not all of the GOP's positions. There is nothing wrong with that and in fact it is smart. The other thing the race proves is that Lamb's district is not filled with a bunch of misogynist, low-information racists who voted for Trump by 20 points but then all of a sudden came to their senses. The voters of this district were offered a young dynamic candidate who spoke to them with respect and for the most part agreed with them on centre-right issues.

it doesn't matter. trump ran against him. and failed. again.

Yeah. Maybe. Other's could argue that Saccone was about to get slaughtered until Trump showed up. I'm not really sure but if you were a Republican knowing this district is about to disappear in November then why even bother showing up if it makes zero difference to the governing majority? There were so many different things at play and in the end people shouldn't take away from the fact that Lamb himself was/is an excellent candidate.

I know people use polling numbers to their advantage and decry them when they don't, but this is considered a massive upset, even if he squeaks out a win, is it not? trump won that same district by 20 points. excellent opposing candidate or not, that doesn't happen without reason.

I absolutely agree that it is a massive upset...my point is that everybody always wants it to be because of a certain thing. It is so simple to say it is because of Trump when there really are a whole host of factors. Let's flip it around for a sec... The other day there was an election in Texas which was supposed to demonstrate the coming blue wave. It turns out that there was no blue wave there at all. Cruz crushed the votes of his three opponents combined. Where was the national Trump exhaustion in Texas? The truth is that Trump plays a much smaller role in some of these local races then people want to believe. Lamb was a far better candidate then Beto. He is also more disruptive to the status quo. The candidate matters. Also the district in Pennsylvania is disappearing in November...other then narrative in what possible way did the election matter yesterday matter? In terms of passing legislation it sure as hell doesn't matter.

Saccone was fully backed by Trump and claimed to be perfectly in line with Trump and his agenda. This is a huge loss for Trump. You can downplay it all you like, it won't make it true.

How are those FISA investigations coming? Indictments any day now? I'm sure worried for Obama.

Pompeo is a fantastic upgrade. I'm agnostic about Haspel but I'm sure the rank and file approve bigly. Lamb shows that a good candidate with a conservative-bent can win in a very Red district. Like Jones and Northam before him the dems need to recognize that this is the path to victory. If they can get their progressive wing to back off then flipping the house should be easy.

Wasn’t it about a year ago that you were claiming that the brilliancy of Team Trump Treason and his campaign and policies would result in a Team Trumpian Treasonous wave that would solidify repube holds on congress and state legislatures, resulting in Team Trump Treason’s re-election and repubes’ consolidation of power for a generation? Still believing the myth, eh Professor?

No. I never claimed that at all but I understand how your emotion prevents you from comprehending reasoned nuanced arguments which led you to think that. I said that Trump figured out how to speak to the working class voter in a way that previous Republican candidates failed. I also said that if Democrats failed to learn from this then they will have a hard time of winning in the future. Doug Jones demonstrates learning. Lamb demonstrates learning. The progressive wing boxing-in red state democrats like Tester into a corner shows a lack of learning. The odds are that the Republicans will lose the house next year regardless of Trump's performance because as I have said before it is generally cyclical...the President loses the house in his first term almost all the time and there is currently no evidence that Trump's support crosses over to GOP establishment candidates that he ran against. The senate on the other hand will likely stay red and in fact will have a larger GOP majority when all is said and done as the progressive wing is making it extremely hard for red state senators to hold their seats...the Jones election is likely an off-year anomaly where everything had to go right including a terrible opponent in order to squeak over the finish line. There is no myth of Trump other then a disruptive outsider who will govern chaotically and will be judged by results. He didn't run as a saint but as a "doer" and in the end he will take that record to the people for judgement. He will have to thread the same very thin needle to win and will have to remain an outsider to do so. Who his opponent is will matter greatly and the democrats should strongly consider candidates in the "Lamb" mold. There is a reason why Democratic operatives are on tv asking Hillary Clinton to stop talking...her AMT rhetoric is bad for the party.

Nice revisionist history. It’s what you neoCONS do best. You did claim Team Trump Treason as brilliant so at least admit that.

Hillary who?

Yes on claiming that Trump was brilliant in the campaign that he ran. It was pure brilliance as he saw what nobody else saw, ran in a way that nobody else ever ran, and won in a way that very few people have done before. Complete and utter brilliance. He continues to be brilliant in the way that he is able to on the whole advance his agenda. Like I said 100 times...the man fails forward. None of this guarantees reelection though as I have also said 100 times that he will be judged on results. I do believe though that he is doing what is necessary to repeat in 2020 even if that means GOP losses in 2018. In terms of your Neocon analysis though you are way off...the neocon establishment actually disagrees with me...they are generally NeverTrump...they thought he could not win and they still believe he is dangerous. You really need to pay attention to the different wings and who believes in what...again your understanding is all over the place.

I keep hearing that

a) trump is brilliant and ran a brilliant campaign

but also

b) hillary was a terrible candidate who ran a horrible campaign

it can't be both.

Of course it can be both.

It may have been both in 1984 when Reagan won 49 states. But was it really both when a few million more people voted for her than him?

President Donald Trump thinks the United States should launch a “Space Force,” a branch of the military devoted to wars in space.

“Space is a war-fighting domain, just like the land, air and sea,” Trump said on Tuesday at the Marine Corps Air Station Miramar. “We may even have a Space Force, develop another one, Space Force. We have the Air Force, we’ll have the Space Force.”

At first, Trump said he wasn’t serious about the notion.

“Then I said, ‘What a great idea!’ Maybe we’ll have to do that,’” Trump said. “So think of that: Space Force, because we are spending a lot and we have a lot of private money coming in, tremendous.”

He also described the U.S. military as “vital to ensuring America continues to lead the way into the stars.”

Kay, honestly, ignoring the fact that he's a rambling idiot with this, I don't think this kind of (crazy) talk is bad. Yes, of course the idea of militarizing in space seems insane, but remember, this guy isn't going to be in office anywhere near long enough for that to get off the ground. Given that, the fact that he appears to be in support of space travel technology/funding is probably a good thing in the long term. The alternative, and where I often fear Republican presidents will go, is for them to slash or totally cut off funding for technology development in that area. I'm personally one who supports all work that goes towards space exploration/technology in general, not to mention asteroid intervention projects, which actually are one priority for NASA - that work has to continue in a consistent way as humankind evolves IMO .... So dropping the stupid space wars fantasy that Trump is babbling about, if he's going to help to fund NASA or even military scientific research in that area, that could be a good thing for after he's gone, at least compared to slowing or stopping that kind of advancement. And it is actually possible that he's going in the dumb "space wars" route when he talks because that is probably the only track he can take with it so his moronic base will support paying for space technology development.

it won't matter. trump is just blathering about whatever comes into his puny mind again. nothing will come of it.

People said the same thing about Reagan's Star Wars...who's laughing about that now? Space will be militarized...it is just a question of who gets there first. Most of you wouldn't last a second when one of your precious communication satellites goes down...not to mention the SiriusXM satellite. Apparently some of us fans care more about PJ Radio then others.

um, an anti-missle defense system is a TAD different than talking about a Space Force out of absolutely nowhere. it probably will happen eventualy, but it ain't gonna be spearheaded by president idiot, that I can tell you.

President Donald Trump thinks the United States should launch a “Space Force,” a branch of the military devoted to wars in space.

“Space is a war-fighting domain, just like the land, air and sea,” Trump said on Tuesday at the Marine Corps Air Station Miramar. “We may even have a Space Force, develop another one, Space Force. We have the Air Force, we’ll have the Space Force.”

At first, Trump said he wasn’t serious about the notion.

“Then I said, ‘What a great idea!’ Maybe we’ll have to do that,’” Trump said. “So think of that: Space Force, because we are spending a lot and we have a lot of private money coming in, tremendous.”

He also described the U.S. military as “vital to ensuring America continues to lead the way into the stars.”

Kay, honestly, ignoring the fact that he's a rambling idiot with this, I don't think this kind of (crazy) talk is bad. Yes, of course the idea of militarizing in space seems insane, but remember, this guy isn't going to be in office anywhere near long enough for that to get off the ground. Given that, the fact that he appears to be in support of space travel technology/funding is probably a good thing in the long term. The alternative, and where I often fear Republican presidents will go, is for them to slash or totally cut off funding for technology development in that area. I'm personally one who supports all work that goes towards space exploration/technology in general, not to mention asteroid intervention projects, which actually are one priority for NASA - that work has to continue in a consistent way as humankind evolves IMO .... So dropping the stupid space wars fantasy that Trump is babbling about, if he's going to help to fund NASA or even military scientific research in that area, that could be a good thing for after he's gone, at least compared to slowing or stopping that kind of advancement. And it is actually possible that he's going in the dumb "space wars" route when he talks because that is probably the only track he can take with it so his moronic base will support paying for space technology development.

it won't matter. trump is just blathering about whatever comes into his puny mind again. nothing will come of it.

People said the same thing about Reagan's Star Wars...who's laughing about that now? Space will be militarized...it is just a question of who gets there first. Most of you wouldn't last a second when one of your precious communication satellites goes down...not to mention the SiriusXM satellite. Apparently some of us fans care more about PJ Radio then others.

um, an anti-missle defense system is a TAD different than talking about a Space Force out of absolutely nowhere. it probably will happen eventualy, but it ain't gonna be spearheaded by president idiot, that I can tell you.

Like I said...people said the same thing about Reagan.

ok, When President Gossard creates the Space Force in 2032 you can credit Trump with the "original idea".

The Pennsylvania race proves it: Trump is a weight around the GOP’s neck

In short, the vast majority of Republican officeholders will continue walking the tightrope. Too afraid of offending the GOP base, which is still solidly behind Trump, yet too afraid of generating a backlash among Democrats and independents, they are the proverbial deer caught in the headlights. They dare not dash to one side or another (solidly pro- or anti-Trump), but they are defenseless against the charge that they are enablers of a deeply unpopular president.

The Pennsylvania race proves conservative democrats can win. Lamb did not run against Trump. He was a great candidate who vocally rejected Pelosi and supported most if not all of the GOP's positions. There is nothing wrong with that and in fact it is smart. The other thing the race proves is that Lamb's district is not filled with a bunch of misogynist, low-information racists who voted for Trump by 20 points but then all of a sudden came to their senses. The voters of this district were offered a young dynamic candidate who spoke to them with respect and for the most part agreed with them on centre-right issues.

it doesn't matter. trump ran against him. and failed. again.

Yeah. Maybe. Other's could argue that Saccone was about to get slaughtered until Trump showed up. I'm not really sure but if you were a Republican knowing this district is about to disappear in November then why even bother showing up if it makes zero difference to the governing majority? There were so many different things at play and in the end people shouldn't take away from the fact that Lamb himself was/is an excellent candidate.

I know people use polling numbers to their advantage and decry them when they don't, but this is considered a massive upset, even if he squeaks out a win, is it not? trump won that same district by 20 points. excellent opposing candidate or not, that doesn't happen without reason.

I absolutely agree that it is a massive upset...my point is that everybody always wants it to be because of a certain thing. It is so simple to say it is because of Trump when there really are a whole host of factors. Let's flip it around for a sec... The other day there was an election in Texas which was supposed to demonstrate the coming blue wave. It turns out that there was no blue wave there at all. Cruz crushed the votes of his three opponents combined. Where was the national Trump exhaustion in Texas? The truth is that Trump plays a much smaller role in some of these local races then people want to believe. Lamb was a far better candidate then Beto. He is also more disruptive to the status quo. The candidate matters. Also the district in Pennsylvania is disappearing in November...other then narrative in what possible way did the election matter yesterday matter? In terms of passing legislation it sure as hell doesn't matter.

Are you comparing the results of a Republican primary with those of a general election? There was no blue wave because it was a red primary. Nice try though.

There was a democratic primary as well...did you happen to notice that or were you too busy streaming Stormy videos in search of evidence? Cruz ran unopposed and still received more primary votes then three democrats in a competitive race combined. Political scientists compare these numbers in order to gauge enthusiasm and the promised blue wave enthusiasm in Texas failed to materialize.

Pompeo is a fantastic upgrade. I'm agnostic about Haspel but I'm sure the rank and file approve bigly. Lamb shows that a good candidate with a conservative-bent can win in a very Red district. Like Jones and Northam before him the dems need to recognize that this is the path to victory. If they can get their progressive wing to back off then flipping the house should be easy.

Wasn’t it about a year ago that you were claiming that the brilliancy of Team Trump Treason and his campaign and policies would result in a Team Trumpian Treasonous wave that would solidify repube holds on congress and state legislatures, resulting in Team Trump Treason’s re-election and repubes’ consolidation of power for a generation? Still believing the myth, eh Professor?

No. I never claimed that at all but I understand how your emotion prevents you from comprehending reasoned nuanced arguments which led you to think that. I said that Trump figured out how to speak to the working class voter in a way that previous Republican candidates failed. I also said that if Democrats failed to learn from this then they will have a hard time of winning in the future. Doug Jones demonstrates learning. Lamb demonstrates learning. The progressive wing boxing-in red state democrats like Tester into a corner shows a lack of learning. The odds are that the Republicans will lose the house next year regardless of Trump's performance because as I have said before it is generally cyclical...the President loses the house in his first term almost all the time and there is currently no evidence that Trump's support crosses over to GOP establishment candidates that he ran against. The senate on the other hand will likely stay red and in fact will have a larger GOP majority when all is said and done as the progressive wing is making it extremely hard for red state senators to hold their seats...the Jones election is likely an off-year anomaly where everything had to go right including a terrible opponent in order to squeak over the finish line. There is no myth of Trump other then a disruptive outsider who will govern chaotically and will be judged by results. He didn't run as a saint but as a "doer" and in the end he will take that record to the people for judgement. He will have to thread the same very thin needle to win and will have to remain an outsider to do so. Who his opponent is will matter greatly and the democrats should strongly consider candidates in the "Lamb" mold. There is a reason why Democratic operatives are on tv asking Hillary Clinton to stop talking...her AMT rhetoric is bad for the party.

Nice revisionist history. It’s what you neoCONS do best. You did claim Team Trump Treason as brilliant so at least admit that.

Hillary who?

Yes on claiming that Trump was brilliant in the campaign that he ran. It was pure brilliance as he saw what nobody else saw, ran in a way that nobody else ever ran, and won in a way that very few people have done before. Complete and utter brilliance. He continues to be brilliant in the way that he is able to on the whole advance his agenda. Like I said 100 times...the man fails forward. None of this guarantees reelection though as I have also said 100 times that he will be judged on results. I do believe though that he is doing what is necessary to repeat in 2020 even if that means GOP losses in 2018. In terms of your Neocon analysis though you are way off...the neocon establishment actually disagrees with me...they are generally NeverTrump...they thought he could not win and they still believe he is dangerous. You really need to pay attention to the different wings and who believes in what...again your understanding is all over the place.

I keep hearing that

a) trump is brilliant and ran a brilliant campaign

but also

b) hillary was a terrible candidate who ran a horrible campaign

it can't be both.

Of course it can be both.

It may have been both in 1984 when Reagan won 49 states. But was it really both when a few million more people voted for her than him?

When the name of the game is winning Electoral College votes then 100% it can be both.

The Pennsylvania race proves it: Trump is a weight around the GOP’s neck

In short, the vast majority of Republican officeholders will continue walking the tightrope. Too afraid of offending the GOP base, which is still solidly behind Trump, yet too afraid of generating a backlash among Democrats and independents, they are the proverbial deer caught in the headlights. They dare not dash to one side or another (solidly pro- or anti-Trump), but they are defenseless against the charge that they are enablers of a deeply unpopular president.

The Pennsylvania race proves conservative democrats can win. Lamb did not run against Trump. He was a great candidate who vocally rejected Pelosi and supported most if not all of the GOP's positions. There is nothing wrong with that and in fact it is smart. The other thing the race proves is that Lamb's district is not filled with a bunch of misogynist, low-information racists who voted for Trump by 20 points but then all of a sudden came to their senses. The voters of this district were offered a young dynamic candidate who spoke to them with respect and for the most part agreed with them on centre-right issues.

it doesn't matter. trump ran against him. and failed. again.

Yeah. Maybe. Other's could argue that Saccone was about to get slaughtered until Trump showed up. I'm not really sure but if you were a Republican knowing this district is about to disappear in November then why even bother showing up if it makes zero difference to the governing majority? There were so many different things at play and in the end people shouldn't take away from the fact that Lamb himself was/is an excellent candidate.

I know people use polling numbers to their advantage and decry them when they don't, but this is considered a massive upset, even if he squeaks out a win, is it not? trump won that same district by 20 points. excellent opposing candidate or not, that doesn't happen without reason.

I absolutely agree that it is a massive upset...my point is that everybody always wants it to be because of a certain thing. It is so simple to say it is because of Trump when there really are a whole host of factors. Let's flip it around for a sec... The other day there was an election in Texas which was supposed to demonstrate the coming blue wave. It turns out that there was no blue wave there at all. Cruz crushed the votes of his three opponents combined. Where was the national Trump exhaustion in Texas? The truth is that Trump plays a much smaller role in some of these local races then people want to believe. Lamb was a far better candidate then Beto. He is also more disruptive to the status quo. The candidate matters. Also the district in Pennsylvania is disappearing in November...other then narrative in what possible way did the election matter yesterday matter? In terms of passing legislation it sure as hell doesn't matter.

Are you comparing the results of a Republican primary with those of a general election? There was no blue wave because it was a red primary. Nice try though.

There was a democratic primary as well...did you happen to notice that or were you too busy streaming Stormy videos in search of evidence? Cruz ran unopposed and still received more primary votes then three democrats in a competitive race combined. Political scientists compare these numbers in order to gauge enthusiasm and the promised blue wave enthusiasm in Texas failed to materialize.

Wait until the general, Professor. Good things come to those that wait.

Pompeo is a fantastic upgrade. I'm agnostic about Haspel but I'm sure the rank and file approve bigly. Lamb shows that a good candidate with a conservative-bent can win in a very Red district. Like Jones and Northam before him the dems need to recognize that this is the path to victory. If they can get their progressive wing to back off then flipping the house should be easy.

Wasn’t it about a year ago that you were claiming that the brilliancy of Team Trump Treason and his campaign and policies would result in a Team Trumpian Treasonous wave that would solidify repube holds on congress and state legislatures, resulting in Team Trump Treason’s re-election and repubes’ consolidation of power for a generation? Still believing the myth, eh Professor?

No. I never claimed that at all but I understand how your emotion prevents you from comprehending reasoned nuanced arguments which led you to think that. I said that Trump figured out how to speak to the working class voter in a way that previous Republican candidates failed. I also said that if Democrats failed to learn from this then they will have a hard time of winning in the future. Doug Jones demonstrates learning. Lamb demonstrates learning. The progressive wing boxing-in red state democrats like Tester into a corner shows a lack of learning. The odds are that the Republicans will lose the house next year regardless of Trump's performance because as I have said before it is generally cyclical...the President loses the house in his first term almost all the time and there is currently no evidence that Trump's support crosses over to GOP establishment candidates that he ran against. The senate on the other hand will likely stay red and in fact will have a larger GOP majority when all is said and done as the progressive wing is making it extremely hard for red state senators to hold their seats...the Jones election is likely an off-year anomaly where everything had to go right including a terrible opponent in order to squeak over the finish line. There is no myth of Trump other then a disruptive outsider who will govern chaotically and will be judged by results. He didn't run as a saint but as a "doer" and in the end he will take that record to the people for judgement. He will have to thread the same very thin needle to win and will have to remain an outsider to do so. Who his opponent is will matter greatly and the democrats should strongly consider candidates in the "Lamb" mold. There is a reason why Democratic operatives are on tv asking Hillary Clinton to stop talking...her AMT rhetoric is bad for the party.

Nice revisionist history. It’s what you neoCONS do best. You did claim Team Trump Treason as brilliant so at least admit that.

Hillary who?

Yes on claiming that Trump was brilliant in the campaign that he ran. It was pure brilliance as he saw what nobody else saw, ran in a way that nobody else ever ran, and won in a way that very few people have done before. Complete and utter brilliance. He continues to be brilliant in the way that he is able to on the whole advance his agenda. Like I said 100 times...the man fails forward. None of this guarantees reelection though as I have also said 100 times that he will be judged on results. I do believe though that he is doing what is necessary to repeat in 2020 even if that means GOP losses in 2018. In terms of your Neocon analysis though you are way off...the neocon establishment actually disagrees with me...they are generally NeverTrump...they thought he could not win and they still believe he is dangerous. You really need to pay attention to the different wings and who believes in what...again your understanding is all over the place.

I keep hearing that

a) trump is brilliant and ran a brilliant campaign

but also

b) hillary was a terrible candidate who ran a horrible campaign

it can't be both.

Of course it can be both.

It may have been both in 1984 when Reagan won 49 states. But was it really both when a few million more people voted for her than him?

When the name of the game is winning Electoral College votes then 100% it can be both.

disagree. he benefited from many things. running a brilliant campaign was not one of them.

if he ran a brilliant campaign, he would have to be brilliant no matter his opposition. had hillary been even slightly more likable and actualy run a campaign in the states that mattered (and that pesky FBI announcement days prior to voting), he would have lost. how brilliant could that be?

Pompeo is a fantastic upgrade. I'm agnostic about Haspel but I'm sure the rank and file approve bigly. Lamb shows that a good candidate with a conservative-bent can win in a very Red district. Like Jones and Northam before him the dems need to recognize that this is the path to victory. If they can get their progressive wing to back off then flipping the house should be easy.

Wasn’t it about a year ago that you were claiming that the brilliancy of Team Trump Treason and his campaign and policies would result in a Team Trumpian Treasonous wave that would solidify repube holds on congress and state legislatures, resulting in Team Trump Treason’s re-election and repubes’ consolidation of power for a generation? Still believing the myth, eh Professor?

No. I never claimed that at all but I understand how your emotion prevents you from comprehending reasoned nuanced arguments which led you to think that. I said that Trump figured out how to speak to the working class voter in a way that previous Republican candidates failed. I also said that if Democrats failed to learn from this then they will have a hard time of winning in the future. Doug Jones demonstrates learning. Lamb demonstrates learning. The progressive wing boxing-in red state democrats like Tester into a corner shows a lack of learning. The odds are that the Republicans will lose the house next year regardless of Trump's performance because as I have said before it is generally cyclical...the President loses the house in his first term almost all the time and there is currently no evidence that Trump's support crosses over to GOP establishment candidates that he ran against. The senate on the other hand will likely stay red and in fact will have a larger GOP majority when all is said and done as the progressive wing is making it extremely hard for red state senators to hold their seats...the Jones election is likely an off-year anomaly where everything had to go right including a terrible opponent in order to squeak over the finish line. There is no myth of Trump other then a disruptive outsider who will govern chaotically and will be judged by results. He didn't run as a saint but as a "doer" and in the end he will take that record to the people for judgement. He will have to thread the same very thin needle to win and will have to remain an outsider to do so. Who his opponent is will matter greatly and the democrats should strongly consider candidates in the "Lamb" mold. There is a reason why Democratic operatives are on tv asking Hillary Clinton to stop talking...her AMT rhetoric is bad for the party.

Nice revisionist history. It’s what you neoCONS do best. You did claim Team Trump Treason as brilliant so at least admit that.

Hillary who?

Yes on claiming that Trump was brilliant in the campaign that he ran. It was pure brilliance as he saw what nobody else saw, ran in a way that nobody else ever ran, and won in a way that very few people have done before. Complete and utter brilliance. He continues to be brilliant in the way that he is able to on the whole advance his agenda. Like I said 100 times...the man fails forward. None of this guarantees reelection though as I have also said 100 times that he will be judged on results. I do believe though that he is doing what is necessary to repeat in 2020 even if that means GOP losses in 2018. In terms of your Neocon analysis though you are way off...the neocon establishment actually disagrees with me...they are generally NeverTrump...they thought he could not win and they still believe he is dangerous. You really need to pay attention to the different wings and who believes in what...again your understanding is all over the place.

I keep hearing that

a) trump is brilliant and ran a brilliant campaign

but also

b) hillary was a terrible candidate who ran a horrible campaign

it can't be both.

Of course it can be both.

It may have been both in 1984 when Reagan won 49 states. But was it really both when a few million more people voted for her than him?

When the name of the game is winning Electoral College votes then 100% it can be both.

The Pennsylvania race proves it: Trump is a weight around the GOP’s neck

In short, the vast majority of Republican officeholders will continue walking the tightrope. Too afraid of offending the GOP base, which is still solidly behind Trump, yet too afraid of generating a backlash among Democrats and independents, they are the proverbial deer caught in the headlights. They dare not dash to one side or another (solidly pro- or anti-Trump), but they are defenseless against the charge that they are enablers of a deeply unpopular president.

The Pennsylvania race proves conservative democrats can win. Lamb did not run against Trump. He was a great candidate who vocally rejected Pelosi and supported most if not all of the GOP's positions. There is nothing wrong with that and in fact it is smart. The other thing the race proves is that Lamb's district is not filled with a bunch of misogynist, low-information racists who voted for Trump by 20 points but then all of a sudden came to their senses. The voters of this district were offered a young dynamic candidate who spoke to them with respect and for the most part agreed with them on centre-right issues.

it doesn't matter. trump ran against him. and failed. again.

Yeah. Maybe. Other's could argue that Saccone was about to get slaughtered until Trump showed up. I'm not really sure but if you were a Republican knowing this district is about to disappear in November then why even bother showing up if it makes zero difference to the governing majority? There were so many different things at play and in the end people shouldn't take away from the fact that Lamb himself was/is an excellent candidate.

I know people use polling numbers to their advantage and decry them when they don't, but this is considered a massive upset, even if he squeaks out a win, is it not? trump won that same district by 20 points. excellent opposing candidate or not, that doesn't happen without reason.

I absolutely agree that it is a massive upset...my point is that everybody always wants it to be because of a certain thing. It is so simple to say it is because of Trump when there really are a whole host of factors. Let's flip it around for a sec... The other day there was an election in Texas which was supposed to demonstrate the coming blue wave. It turns out that there was no blue wave there at all. Cruz crushed the votes of his three opponents combined. Where was the national Trump exhaustion in Texas? The truth is that Trump plays a much smaller role in some of these local races then people want to believe. Lamb was a far better candidate then Beto. He is also more disruptive to the status quo. The candidate matters. Also the district in Pennsylvania is disappearing in November...other then narrative in what possible way did the election matter yesterday matter? In terms of passing legislation it sure as hell doesn't matter.

Are you comparing the results of a Republican primary with those of a general election? There was no blue wave because it was a red primary. Nice try though.

There was a democratic primary as well...did you happen to notice that or were you too busy streaming Stormy videos in search of evidence? Cruz ran unopposed and still received more primary votes then three democrats in a competitive race combined. Political scientists compare these numbers in order to gauge enthusiasm and the promised blue wave enthusiasm in Texas failed to materialize.

No, in fact, I was too busy listening to the 2007 radio interview with Stormy regarding her affair with Team Trump Treason and spanking him with a Forbes Fortune 500 magazine.

I really can't believe that this far out nobody on here can give him any credit at all for the campaign. I'm not talking about style points for f sakes...I'm talking about strategy! It was chaotic and ugly for sure but it was a strategy based on timing and instincts that completely paid off. Democratic strategist are openly discussing this so why can't the rest of you?

I really can't believe that this far out nobody on here can give him any credit at all for the campaign. I'm not talking about style points for f sakes...I'm talking about strategy! It was chaotic and ugly for sure but it was a strategy based on timing and instincts that completely paid off. Democratic strategist are openly discussing this so why can't the rest of you?

Trump was not brilliant and did not run a brilliant campaign. That was what was said. You are free to give him as much credit as you like. If you think he was brilliant, fine. I don't.

Pompeo is a fantastic upgrade. I'm agnostic about Haspel but I'm sure the rank and file approve bigly. Lamb shows that a good candidate with a conservative-bent can win in a very Red district. Like Jones and Northam before him the dems need to recognize that this is the path to victory. If they can get their progressive wing to back off then flipping the house should be easy.

Wasn’t it about a year ago that you were claiming that the brilliancy of Team Trump Treason and his campaign and policies would result in a Team Trumpian Treasonous wave that would solidify repube holds on congress and state legislatures, resulting in Team Trump Treason’s re-election and repubes’ consolidation of power for a generation? Still believing the myth, eh Professor?

No. I never claimed that at all but I understand how your emotion prevents you from comprehending reasoned nuanced arguments which led you to think that. I said that Trump figured out how to speak to the working class voter in a way that previous Republican candidates failed. I also said that if Democrats failed to learn from this then they will have a hard time of winning in the future. Doug Jones demonstrates learning. Lamb demonstrates learning. The progressive wing boxing-in red state democrats like Tester into a corner shows a lack of learning. The odds are that the Republicans will lose the house next year regardless of Trump's performance because as I have said before it is generally cyclical...the President loses the house in his first term almost all the time and there is currently no evidence that Trump's support crosses over to GOP establishment candidates that he ran against. The senate on the other hand will likely stay red and in fact will have a larger GOP majority when all is said and done as the progressive wing is making it extremely hard for red state senators to hold their seats...the Jones election is likely an off-year anomaly where everything had to go right including a terrible opponent in order to squeak over the finish line. There is no myth of Trump other then a disruptive outsider who will govern chaotically and will be judged by results. He didn't run as a saint but as a "doer" and in the end he will take that record to the people for judgement. He will have to thread the same very thin needle to win and will have to remain an outsider to do so. Who his opponent is will matter greatly and the democrats should strongly consider candidates in the "Lamb" mold. There is a reason why Democratic operatives are on tv asking Hillary Clinton to stop talking...her AMT rhetoric is bad for the party.

Nice revisionist history. It’s what you neoCONS do best. You did claim Team Trump Treason as brilliant so at least admit that.

Hillary who?

Yes on claiming that Trump was brilliant in the campaign that he ran. It was pure brilliance as he saw what nobody else saw, ran in a way that nobody else ever ran, and won in a way that very few people have done before. Complete and utter brilliance. He continues to be brilliant in the way that he is able to on the whole advance his agenda. Like I said 100 times...the man fails forward. None of this guarantees reelection though as I have also said 100 times that he will be judged on results. I do believe though that he is doing what is necessary to repeat in 2020 even if that means GOP losses in 2018. In terms of your Neocon analysis though you are way off...the neocon establishment actually disagrees with me...they are generally NeverTrump...they thought he could not win and they still believe he is dangerous. You really need to pay attention to the different wings and who believes in what...again your understanding is all over the place.

I keep hearing that

a) trump is brilliant and ran a brilliant campaign

but also

b) hillary was a terrible candidate who ran a horrible campaign

it can't be both.

Of course it can be both.

It may have been both in 1984 when Reagan won 49 states. But was it really both when a few million more people voted for her than him?

When the name of the game is winning Electoral College votes then 100% it can be both.

disagree. he benefited from many things. running a brilliant campaign was not one of them.

if he ran a brilliant campaign, he would have to be brilliant no matter his opposition. had hillary been even slightly more likable and actualy run a campaign in the states that mattered (and that pesky FBI announcement days prior to voting), he would have lost. how brilliant could that be?

Well first it is understanding timing and recognizing to run in the year where Hillary and Jeb were pretty much anointed by the establishment before the race even began. It was the only scenario where his candidacy could work. Second you completely ignore the primaries where he had to beat 16 other candidates. It was not just Hillary he faced. Trump recognized the game board early and played the game to perfection warts and all.

I really can't believe that this far out nobody on here can give him any credit at all for the campaign. I'm not talking about style points for f sakes...I'm talking about strategy! It was chaotic and ugly for sure but it was a strategy based on timing and instincts that completely paid off. Democratic strategist are openly discussing this so why can't the rest of you?

Yes i'll give him credit , i'm hoping he shows up at all REPUBLICAN campaigns this yr he sure know how to pick e'm what is he 0-4 ...

I really can't believe that this far out nobody on here can give him any credit at all for the campaign. I'm not talking about style points for f sakes...I'm talking about strategy! It was chaotic and ugly for sure but it was a strategy based on timing and instincts that completely paid off. Democratic strategist are openly discussing this so why can't the rest of you?

Running against one of the most hated figures in US political history was not strategy.

But the more I think about it, the more I am open to this. I guess the question is whether there was a lot of strategy involved in taking advantage of white America's frustration with eight years of a president that, um "hates America." Somehow, the "forgotten America" was convinced that a silver-spoon, Ivy League, New York, billionaire was the person that was going to "remember" them. And they still think that. Was it a brilliant campaign? Or did that just fall into their lap like Hillary did?

Pompeo is a fantastic upgrade. I'm agnostic about Haspel but I'm sure the rank and file approve bigly. Lamb shows that a good candidate with a conservative-bent can win in a very Red district. Like Jones and Northam before him the dems need to recognize that this is the path to victory. If they can get their progressive wing to back off then flipping the house should be easy.

Wasn’t it about a year ago that you were claiming that the brilliancy of Team Trump Treason and his campaign and policies would result in a Team Trumpian Treasonous wave that would solidify repube holds on congress and state legislatures, resulting in Team Trump Treason’s re-election and repubes’ consolidation of power for a generation? Still believing the myth, eh Professor?

No. I never claimed that at all but I understand how your emotion prevents you from comprehending reasoned nuanced arguments which led you to think that. I said that Trump figured out how to speak to the working class voter in a way that previous Republican candidates failed. I also said that if Democrats failed to learn from this then they will have a hard time of winning in the future. Doug Jones demonstrates learning. Lamb demonstrates learning. The progressive wing boxing-in red state democrats like Tester into a corner shows a lack of learning. The odds are that the Republicans will lose the house next year regardless of Trump's performance because as I have said before it is generally cyclical...the President loses the house in his first term almost all the time and there is currently no evidence that Trump's support crosses over to GOP establishment candidates that he ran against. The senate on the other hand will likely stay red and in fact will have a larger GOP majority when all is said and done as the progressive wing is making it extremely hard for red state senators to hold their seats...the Jones election is likely an off-year anomaly where everything had to go right including a terrible opponent in order to squeak over the finish line. There is no myth of Trump other then a disruptive outsider who will govern chaotically and will be judged by results. He didn't run as a saint but as a "doer" and in the end he will take that record to the people for judgement. He will have to thread the same very thin needle to win and will have to remain an outsider to do so. Who his opponent is will matter greatly and the democrats should strongly consider candidates in the "Lamb" mold. There is a reason why Democratic operatives are on tv asking Hillary Clinton to stop talking...her AMT rhetoric is bad for the party.

Nice revisionist history. It’s what you neoCONS do best. You did claim Team Trump Treason as brilliant so at least admit that.

Hillary who?

Yes on claiming that Trump was brilliant in the campaign that he ran. It was pure brilliance as he saw what nobody else saw, ran in a way that nobody else ever ran, and won in a way that very few people have done before. Complete and utter brilliance. He continues to be brilliant in the way that he is able to on the whole advance his agenda. Like I said 100 times...the man fails forward. None of this guarantees reelection though as I have also said 100 times that he will be judged on results. I do believe though that he is doing what is necessary to repeat in 2020 even if that means GOP losses in 2018. In terms of your Neocon analysis though you are way off...the neocon establishment actually disagrees with me...they are generally NeverTrump...they thought he could not win and they still believe he is dangerous. You really need to pay attention to the different wings and who believes in what...again your understanding is all over the place.

I keep hearing that

a) trump is brilliant and ran a brilliant campaign

but also

b) hillary was a terrible candidate who ran a horrible campaign

it can't be both.

Of course it can be both.

It may have been both in 1984 when Reagan won 49 states. But was it really both when a few million more people voted for her than him?

When the name of the game is winning Electoral College votes then 100% it can be both.

disagree. he benefited from many things. running a brilliant campaign was not one of them.

if he ran a brilliant campaign, he would have to be brilliant no matter his opposition. had hillary been even slightly more likable and actualy run a campaign in the states that mattered (and that pesky FBI announcement days prior to voting), he would have lost. how brilliant could that be?

Well first it is understanding timing and recognizing to run in the year where Hillary and Jeb were pretty much anointed by the establishment before the race even began. It was the only scenario where his candidacy could work. Second you completely ignore the primaries where he had to beat 16 other candidates. It was not just Hillary he faced. Trump recognized the game board early and played the game to perfection warts and all.

no one is not giving him ANY credit. we are simply disputing the idea that he is brilliant and/or ran a brilliant campaign.

And the repubes’ internal polling showed that Team Trump Treason was the only repube candidate that could beat Hillary but within the margin of error. None of the repube candidates attacked Team Trump Treason for his affairs and treatment of women, particularly in the southern primaries. The repube establishment held their nose and “allowed” Team Trump Treason to win without any of the mudslinging and character asassination typical of repube primary campaigns, see Bush vs McCain, South Carolina. The RNC and NRA, not wanting to leave anything to chance, became complicit with Russian meddling. No brilliance required.

The Pennsylvania race proves it: Trump is a weight around the GOP’s neck

In short, the vast majority of Republican officeholders will continue walking the tightrope. Too afraid of offending the GOP base, which is still solidly behind Trump, yet too afraid of generating a backlash among Democrats and independents, they are the proverbial deer caught in the headlights. They dare not dash to one side or another (solidly pro- or anti-Trump), but they are defenseless against the charge that they are enablers of a deeply unpopular president.

The Pennsylvania race proves conservative democrats can win. Lamb did not run against Trump. He was a great candidate who vocally rejected Pelosi and supported most if not all of the GOP's positions. There is nothing wrong with that and in fact it is smart. The other thing the race proves is that Lamb's district is not filled with a bunch of misogynist, low-information racists who voted for Trump by 20 points but then all of a sudden came to their senses. The voters of this district were offered a young dynamic candidate who spoke to them with respect and for the most part agreed with them on centre-right issues.

it doesn't matter. trump ran against him. and failed. again.

Yeah. Maybe. Other's could argue that Saccone was about to get slaughtered until Trump showed up. I'm not really sure but if you were a Republican knowing this district is about to disappear in November then why even bother showing up if it makes zero difference to the governing majority? There were so many different things at play and in the end people shouldn't take away from the fact that Lamb himself was/is an excellent candidate.

I know people use polling numbers to their advantage and decry them when they don't, but this is considered a massive upset, even if he squeaks out a win, is it not? trump won that same district by 20 points. excellent opposing candidate or not, that doesn't happen without reason.

I absolutely agree that it is a massive upset...my point is that everybody always wants it to be because of a certain thing. It is so simple to say it is because of Trump when there really are a whole host of factors. Let's flip it around for a sec... The other day there was an election in Texas which was supposed to demonstrate the coming blue wave. It turns out that there was no blue wave there at all. Cruz crushed the votes of his three opponents combined. Where was the national Trump exhaustion in Texas? The truth is that Trump plays a much smaller role in some of these local races then people want to believe. Lamb was a far better candidate then Beto. He is also more disruptive to the status quo. The candidate matters. Also the district in Pennsylvania is disappearing in November...other then narrative in what possible way did the election matter yesterday matter? In terms of passing legislation it sure as hell doesn't matter.

Saccone was fully backed by Trump and claimed to be perfectly in line with Trump and his agenda. This is a huge loss for Trump. You can downplay it all you like, it won't make it true.

How are those FISA investigations coming? Indictments any day now? I'm sure worried for Obama.